Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Fantard (2nd review)
Fantard [edit source]
Why nobody Reviewed this for a long time? Just asking...--Fcukman 10:12, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
Fcukman 17:26, July 8, 2011 (UTC)
- This one's mine---
19:41, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 4 | The article does have some promise regarding humor, but in order to make that humor work out some changes must happen. I'll first go into what you shouldnt do, then I will tell why the humor doesn't work, and finally I will explain what you should do to improve.
Through out the article you pretty much do the same thing as every new user does. Throughout the article, you use a lot of memes (such as grues, Chuck Norris, and such). Thats not really a good thing, because those jokes are so overuse they just stop being funny. You make think they're funny, but other people will find that annoying and boring. Now on some occasions a slight mentioning of them can work, mostly by means of a link. For example, "he managed to kill some dangerous brown box-shaped creatures with his magic sword." While that may not be humorous, its a good enough example to see where I'm going from this. But for now, I advise refraining from the use of memes for the time being. I'll also advise you to refrain from using quotes as well. Quotes, like lists and memes, is something that only works sometimes and if done in a good way. That's not the case here im afraid, so they should definitly go. Another problem is that you mentioned Encyclopedia Daramtica. To tell you the truth, we Uncyclopedians hate Encyclopedia Dramatica (probally more Wikipedia) because they, in my opinion, are just so bat shit insane it's not even funny. Plus it's mainly one of those jokes that probally been use so much it's unfunny. Same goes for the rest of the "recommendation if you see one". Another thing, Jesus doesn't kill, he saves. Typically the kind of thing you're doing here is what everyone calls off-color humor. You may never heard of it, but it's also usually refered to vulgar humor or crude humor. Heck, I didn't even heard about it until after I read a recently done Pee Review for an article of mine, then saw the mention of crude humor and looked it's definition on Wikipedia, which states that "the point of off-color humor is to induce laughter by evoking a feeling of shock and surprise in the comedian's audience." This description fits your article. Off-color humor can be humorous, but that's not guaranteed to get a few laughs from people and should be used sparingly. When it's the main humor for an article, it just completely kills it. You see, resorting to things that involves violence, toilet humor, and calling things evil does not garner humor, but rather disgust. Plus its been done so much by Ip users and such people find it boring and childish. People would turn away from your work, or maybe Uncyclopedia as a whole. I'm not saying you can't describe fantards as annoying and go to far with things, I'm just saying don't over do it. Also take note that while Uncyclopedia is a comedy site, there are complaints about some of our content, such as one article that was on VFD regarding Native Americans. The user who put it there had cause Wikia to receive complaints from people offended by it. So I advise watching how you use off-color humor for, or any humor for that matter, when desribing people or a country. And I think the last thing we need is a bunch of piss off fantards causing trouble on this site. I'm pretty sure the admins would not enjoy that. Now that the storm has pass, I'll explain how to improve the article. As I said in the concept section, I think a documentary of some sortthat explains the life of fantards would work out. A good example would in HowTo:Date an Emo Girl, a feature article of mine. While not entirely a documentary, I made the approach of explaining emo's girl as a species of human. And while there is a little violence, it doesn't go over the top. So instead of saying "Fantards are extremely dangerous creatures and will always attack those who trepass their limits(pretty low though)" this would be more appropriate "Fantards are known for their foul moods, therefore making them dandergous to encounter. They possess very short tempers and will lass out unexpectedly at anyone who try their short patience." See how better that sounds? Try to make the article in a little more like that. Also, I think you can go more indepth on what makes a fantard different from a normal fan. Explain how a normal fan's art work differs from that of a fantard's. The fantard syndrome theme can work out, but dont list death as a cure because thats been done too many times. Make it sound like an actually disease, like a professor or a doctor explaining an disease. |
| Concept: | 5 | I believe this is the same person who created the Deviant Art article. Good to see you again. Anyways, without further ado, let's begin shall we?
I do agree with you, fantards can be a bit wtf at times, and an article that talks about their fan-crazed nature really fits. Even though I liked the idea, their is some things that should be improved, as well as things that just don't work. Now I like the concept of describing fantards as a species of human, and how they go too far with their fantasies, but how you executed it just makes it go downhill. To me it looks more like a angry person ranting about how fantards ruin a good franchise with their porno art. That's something that people are not looking for. Now I think this would be a good documentary about fantards doing their natural thing in their natural habitat. Something that is similar to a nature person (the late Steve Irwin for example) observing and explaining crocodiles in their natural habitat. Catch my drift? However, don't do the "they're so dangerous they'll kill you" or the "they're evil" themes because I've believe they've been down a few times before in different articles, and they just don't work here. I'm being generous right now and therefore gave you a five, but it's better than a four. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | There are many grammar mistakes that I've spotted while reading the article. They're mostly letters that should be capitalized and places where spaces are needed. It's always wise to go over your work to make sure you've did not leave out any mistakes, so I strongly advise you do that from now on. Otherwise people will believe the article was written by a two year old. Another problem the article shows is the lists. I've believe we already talked about this for the Deviant Art article. I advise that you stay away from them, at least for the time being, as they are the source of cruft and they don't give the joke they're telling. Sometimes they can actually benefit the article if they've been done in a good way, but right now that's not the case, so it's best to get rid of all the lists. The tone of the article is a cross between first person and third person. When people do that kind of thing, it ruins the balance of the article and just makes it look messy. You need to pick a tone and stick with it, and if you want to change tone it should be a well-thought out quote, otherwise just avoid taking that road. There's also a red link that needs to disappear, because they serve no purpose. |
| Images: | 7 | The fact that you have different images warms my heart. But they need to be spread out because they're cramp together. The captions could some work, but I think you're good in term of images. |
| Miscellaneous: | 4.8 | My overall grade of this article. |
| Final Score: | 23.8 | Its pretty much the same thing you did on Deviant Art. But you're new here, so it explainable. If you follow my advice this article will shine like the top of the Chrysler Building. Feel free to ask me any questions or comments you have on my talk page, Cheers! |
| Reviewer: | ---   06:03, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
| |